Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2288 (ALL)

ADESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-09-06

POONAM SRIVASTAVA

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhoganipur, Kanpur Dehat in case No. 13 of 2005 is impugned in the instant application, whereby an application for release of Chassis No. 426021AUZ200824, Engine No. 50A62380439 vide temporary registration No. JH-05 C-4977 (hereinafter referred as the vehicle in question) has been rejected. The order rejecting release application was challenged in criminal revision No. 151 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2007. This order is also impugned in the instant application. 3. Temporary registration, form issued from Jharkhand on 19.7. 2006 is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the application, wherein Chassis and Engine numbers are clearly shown, which was being taken from Jharkhand to Jaipur to its purchaser. The vehicle in question met with an accident en-route to Jaipur and consequent thereon First Information Report was registered at case crime No. 97 of 2005 under Sections 279/304-A I.P.C. P.S. Moosanagar, District Kanpur Dehat. 4. Driver of the vehicle Adesh Kumar, applicant No. 1 was convicted under Section 279 I.P.C. awarding fine of Rs. 1,000/- and under Section 304-A I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. In the event of non-deposit of fine, additional sentence was of one month. The application for release was moved by Driver Adesh Kumar himself, which was rejected on the ground that driver is not the registered owner of the vehicle in question, therefore, release application could not be allowed. Revision has also been dismissed on the same ground. The instant application has been moved on behalf of driver Adesh Kumar as well as Tata Motors, who is manufacturer of Chassis of the truck, which is sold to the different dealers. 5. On perusal of Annexure No. 5, it transpires that trade tax was paid and there was no illegality whatsoever save for the unfortunate accident. The vehicle is lying in the custody of the police, despite criminal case has come to an end and driver has also served out his sentence. 6. 5. On perusal of Annexure No. 5, it transpires that trade tax was paid and there was no illegality whatsoever save for the unfortunate accident. The vehicle is lying in the custody of the police, despite criminal case has come to an end and driver has also served out his sentence. 6. Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2003 (43) ACC page 223, wherein the Apex Court has clearly stated that the vehicle can be released in favour of the owner or insurance company or a third person, if he is found to be entitled to take delivery. The Apex Court further directed that power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised promptly expeditiously and articles seized should not be kept for a long time at the police station, in any case for not more than 15 days or one month. 7. In the instant case, Courts have completely overlooked that the vehicle in question was being manufactured by Tata Motors and sold to different dealers. Chassis of trucks transported to the different States. It is always entrusted to the respective driver. In the instant case, admittedly, accident had taken place at the hands of the driver Adesh Kumar. He was prosecuted and convicted. The present application is moved at his instance as well as by the actual manufacturer i.e. Tata Motors. The Apex Court in the case of Sunderbai (supra) as well as Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore and another, 1997 (14) ACC 220 (SC), was of the view that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police, ought not be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary as seizure amounts to clear entrustment of the property, to a Government servant, the idea behind Section 451/457 Cr.P.C. is that property should be restored to the original owner after necessity to retain it ceases. 8. 8. In view of decisions of the Apex Court, I quash the impugned orders dated 16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the Sessions Judge respectively and direct the Courts concerned to release Chassis No. 426021AUZ200824, Engine No. 50A62380439 vide temporary registration No. JH-05 C-4977 in favour of the applicants either Adesh Kumar or Tata Motors forthwith within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid direction, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. ————